Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buffy the Vampire Slayer (BFI TV Classics S.)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was Keep. -- VS talk 07:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Buffy the Vampire Slayer (BFI TV Classics S.)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable book; possibly the most obscure academic work ever published on the Buffyverse; queried notability on January 3 and nobody has made any case for it. Orange Mike  |  Talk  20:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * From a British perspective: possibly the most readily available academic work ever published on the Buffyverse. The "BFI TV Classics" bit means it's published by the British Film Institute, and is part of a series that is the media studies equivalent of a "Cliff's Notes" or a "Fontana History". --Paularblaster (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * reply - if that's the case, could you improve the article meaningfully? It's completely lacking in links to reviews, etc. (And what on earth does the S. mean at the end of the title?) -- Orange Mike  |  Talk  15:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The "S." means "Series", but if this is kept I'd suggest moving it to Buffy the Vampire Slayer (BFI TV Classics). Personally, I'd be more inclined to a merge/redirect to Buffy studies. I can't see that it's urgently required as a stand-alone article (any more than articles on each volume in the Cliffs Notes or Fontana History series - Penguin Classics would be another kettle of fish), but it's not something that I strongly feel should be deleted. My remarks above were simply to give a fuller picture of the status of the volume and series (i.e. a lot less obscure from my perspective than from yours). To answer your question, though: the only reviews I can find right now, and unfortunately without being able to access either, are Mark Sinker, in Sight & Sound 16:3 (2006), p. 94 (which I reckon is morally independent of the subject, even though it too is published by BFI); and Boyd Tonkin, in The Independent, December 23, 2005. I's not clear whether Alison Peirse, “The Lure of the Vampire: Gender, Fiction and Fandom from Bram Stoker to Buffy”, Screen 48:1 (2007), pp. 137-140, is a review essay or just an essay that cites Billson (I can't access that text either). Loads tuns up on Billson's book on The Thing (for the BFI Modern Classics series), but that's been accumulating comment for close to ten years. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Add in this which indicates it's a horrible book, and I think you have enough reviews. Hobit (talk) 02:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * query: is simply having been reviewed enough to satisfy Notability (books)? I assumed it was more like: people have published essays and articles addressing the books themes or method; almost any academic book could easily have up to half a dozen reviews. [Editing to add:] there's an example of a run-of-the-mill academic text getting comparable review coverage here. --Paularblaster (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * keep per Hobit. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.